Well, as everyone knows, it’s gay for men to eat pussy, so therefore it must be straight for women to eat pussy 🤔
Not if you declare “no homo.”
It’s not gay if balls don’t touch. And I ain’t seeing any balls here!
O.O
Wow the article is real and from 2015 and not published on April Fools.
It all comes back to how bs and constructed sexual categories always were. Yes I mainly like girls and fem people and think they’re just way better to be with than men, but why write off every guy on earth when I can just live life free to love? I’m fine sitting in a box bc it has pretty colors, but my box only matters when it suits me. The boxes never were innate, and never will be. So long as people get that I like women, they don’t need to worry about me excluding men.
That said, saying these flexible girls are straight is like saying a person with my skin color and ethnicity is white. The category of “straight” functions in a similar way that is defined by historically powerful exclusionary norms. If you’re not only ever into “the correct” people, you’re a filthy degenerate failure who must kill off that part of yourself to be “straight.” Girls who fuck girls cannot fit into that social order unless they deny that part of themselves. It’s not enough to mostly like men, you need to conform
Despite the click-bait headline, that was actually an interesting and well written article.
And it gets reposted about once a week.
Meanwhile, bisexuals…
I’m bi (pan, but the bi flag is better) but… is bi diet-gay?
No, it is not, and don’t ever let anyone pin a sexuality label that isn’t you on you. I am bi and Gen-X. In the 80’s and 90’s I took constant shit from homophobic straight people, as expected. What I didn’t expect, and was truly hurt by, was my homosexual acquaintances calling me “closeted”, “confused gay”, or “a greedy f*g”.
Sorry. I’m clearly still bothered by the bullshit from that era.
Oh dear my comment was in jest, I’m sorry. I call myself gay often but really I’m bi. I’m an old millennial, and grew up when when being tagged as “gay” was a social death sentence. Luckily, I flew under the radar until it became socially unacceptable here to dunk on queer folk. Bow basically my entire friend group is gay, queer, or tans. All of my siblings ended up queer, even the ones in straight marriages lawl. My folks had a lot to learn, and now they’re cool… but weren’t always.
Anyway, I mean no animosity by calling my bi-ass “diet gay”.
They’re under the same umbrella, and are functionally the same thing. Bi is just compatibility with the same/different genders, pan is just compatibility with all genders. Bisexual as a term has had a long and confusing history (it essentially meant intersex in the olden days), so then another standard was created (bisexuality as we think of in the contemporary context) as the terminology evolved, then another standard was created on top of that within the last 30ish years or so (pansexuality).
So basically this, lol.
Scientists now just refer to the entire category as “Bi+” as future forks come out. You get to choose which flag you like best, and everyone knows you are on the universal compatibility standard x3
deleted by creator
Women being gay - wicked. sinful.
Gay dudes throughout western history - lifelong bachelor. never married. lived with his “very close friend” until they both died.
I thought it was:
Women being gay: they were dear friends who lived together for the past 50 years, owned several cats together, never consorted with men, and are now being laid to rest under the same tombstone as it was their eternal wish never to part. What close roommates they were!
Men being gay: we sent him to jail but that wasn’t enough so we cut off his balls.
Yeah that’s far more like it.
That’s pretty much exactly the opposite of how it worked in Britain from Victorian times through to the 90s
I mean there were women too, they were commonly called derogatory names like spinstress.
I didn’t think Spinster was a derogatory term, it was literally a job title of something that women could do to achieve financial independence back in the days when men owned their wives.
I don’t think it started as a derogatory term, but it became so. People would use it to imply that someone was ugly or otherwise defective, so no husband would want them. A man unattached is still seen as more acceptable than a woman unattached even today.
In the same way that any word for an independent woman can be derogatory. It wasn’t used in a negative way when I was growing up (in a deeply old-fashioned part if the UK), and as a kid before I knew that being a lesbian was possible I thought of it as aspirational
deleted by creator
Meet the new breed of girlfriends with benefits.
It heavily implies the usage of the term “girlfriends” as in close female friends.
Edit: Yeah, and on reading the article as posted by the other user, it’s definitively talking about sapphic connections.
